Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Noise Removal Filtering Methods for Mammogram Breast Images

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Cognitive Science and Communications (ICCCE 2023)

Part of the book series: Cognitive Science and Technology ((CSAT))

Abstract

Breast cancer detection in the early stage is an important factor to reduce the mortality rate. Mammogram examination is one of the best optimistic from various approaches used in the early detection of breast cancer at a different stage of cancer and the raw mammogram images are required to pre-process for better radiologist perception and to obtain an enhanced and clear image. It also helps to extract the Region of Interest from the processed image by using statistical feature methods to find the size and shape of the tumor. This paper is on an experimental study performed on sample mammogram images and applies different noise smoothing methods. Methods used to remove noise from the images by applying filtering methods like Gaussian Filter, Tri-State Filter, Mean Filter, Mean-Median Filter, Threshold Filter, Bilateral Filter, Wiener Filter, and Adaptive filter. The processed and obtained quality image will help doctors and radiologists to give an accurate impression on a patient case study. Results: quality of the image obtained on sample mammogram images of CBIS-DDSM dataset achieved min 80% of quality PSNR values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rangarajan B, Shet T, Wadasadawala T, Nair NS, Sairam RM, Hingmire SS, Bajpai J (2016) Breast cancer: an overview of published Indian data. S Asian J Cancer 5(3):86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alkabban FM, Ferguson T (2019) Cancer, breast. In: StatPearls (Internet). StatPearls Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fadhil SS, Dawood FAA (2021) Automatic pectoral muscles detection and removal in mammogram images. Iraqi J Sci 676–688

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mustafa M, Nornazirah A, Salih F, Illzam E, Suleiman M, Sharifa A (2016) Breast cancer: detection markers, prognosis, and prevention. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 15(08):73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sharma GN, Dave R, Sanadya J, Sharma P, Sharma KK (2010) Various types and management of breast cancer: an overview. J Adv Pharm Technol Res 1(2):109

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hortobagyi GN, Edge SB, Giuliano A (2018) New and important changes in the TNM staging system for breast cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 38:457–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Panetta K, Samani A, Agaian S (2014) Choosing the optimal spatial domain measure of enhancement for mammogram images. Int J Biomed Imaging 2014

    Google Scholar 

  8. Soliman H, Abouelazayem M, Elkorety M, Nouh MA, Touny EM, Abdalla HM (2021) Impact of molecular profiling of breast cancer on the rate of locoregional recurrence in young versus old female patients. Cureus 13(1)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Moey SF, Mohamed NC, Lim BC (2021) A path analytic model of health beliefs on the behavioral adoption of breast self-examination. AIMS Public Health 8(1):15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yeshitila YG, Kassa GM, Gebeyehu S, Memiah P, Desta M (2021) Breast self-examination practice and its determinants among women in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 16(1):e0245252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hernandez LI, Araúzo-Bravo MJ, Gerovska D, Solaun RR, Machado I, Balian A, Botero J, Jiménez T, Zuriarrain Bergara O, Larburu Gurruchaga L, Urruticoechea A (2021) Discovery and proof-of-concept study of nuclease activity as a novel biomarker for breast cancer tumors. Cancers 13(2):276

    Google Scholar 

  12. Park HL, Hong J (2014) Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for breast cancer. Gland Surg 3(2):120

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sennerstam RB, Franzén BS, Wiksell HO, Auer GU (2017) Core-needle biopsy of breast cancer is associated with a higher rate of distant metastases 5 to 15 years after diagnosis than FNA biopsy. Cancer Cytopathol 125(10):748–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Piciu A, Piciu D, Polocoser N, Kovendi AA, Almasan I, Mester A, Morariu DS, Cainap C, Cainap SS (2021) Diagnostic performance of F18-FDG PET/CT in male breast cancers patients. Diagnostics 11(1):119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jagadesh BN, Kumari LK (2021) A GLCM based feature extraction in mammogram images using machine learning algorithms. Int J Cur Res Rev 13(05):145

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sir K (2021) The impact of different image thresholding based mammogram image segmentation—a review. Glob J Comput Sci Technol

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang P, Li F (2014) A new adaptive weighted mean filter for removing salt-and-pepper noise. IEEE Signal Process Lett 21(10):1280–1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Satoh Y, Kawamoto M, Kubota K, Murakami K, Hosono M, Senda M, Sasaki M, Momose T, Ito K, Okamura T, Oda K (2021) Clinical practice guidelines for high-resolution breast PET. Ann Nucl Med 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yang SK, Cho N, Moon WK (2007) The role of PET/CT for evaluating breast cancer. Korean J Radiol 8(5):429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Naeim RM, Marouf RA, Nasr MA, Abd El-Rahman ME (2021) Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammography using BI-RADS scoring. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 52(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  21. Badal A, Sharma D, Graff CG, Zeng R, Badano A (2021) Mammography and breast tomosynthesis simulator for virtual clinical trials. Comput Phys Commun 261:107779

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Bandyopadhyay SK (2010) Pre-processing of mammogram images. Int J Eng Sci Technol 2(11):6753–6758

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mehmood Gondal R, Lashari SA, Saare MA, Sari SA (2021) A hybrid de-noising method for mammogram images. Indonesian J Electr Eng Comput Sci 21(3):1435–1443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Anwar R, Farouk MA, Hamid WRA, El Maati AAA, Eissa H (2021) Breast cancer in dense breasts: comparative diagnostic merits of contrast-enhanced mammography and diffusion-weighted breast MRI. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 52(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Deng G, Cahill LW (1993) An adaptive Gaussian filter for noise reduction and edge detection. In: 1993 IEEE conference record nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference. IEEE, pp 1615–1619

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chen T, Ma KK, Chen LH (1999) Tri-state median filter for image denoising. IEEE Trans Image Process 8(12):1834–1838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mahmood NH, Razif MR, Gany MT (2011) Comparison between median, unsharp and wiener filter and its effect on ultrasound stomach tissue image segmentation for pyloric stenosis. Int J Appl Sci Technol 1(5)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Banerjee S, Bandyopadhyay A, Bag R, Das A (2015) Sequentially combined mean-median filter for high density salt and pepper noise removal. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on research in computational intelligence and communication networks (ICRCICN). IEEE, pp 21–26

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang M (2009) Bilateral filter in image processing

    Google Scholar 

  30. Joseph AM, John MG, Dhas AS (2017) Mammogram image denoising filters: a comparative study. In: 2017 Conference on emerging devices and smart systems (ICEDSS). IEEE, pp 184–189

    Google Scholar 

  31. Yaffe MJ Digital mammography. Springer. http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt

  32. Prasad P (2016) Color and gray scale image denoising using modified decision based unsymmetric trimmed median filter

    Google Scholar 

  33. Maheswari VU, Raju SV, Reddy KS (2019) Local directional weighted threshold patterns (LDWTP) for facial expression recognition. In: 2019 Fifth international conference on image information processing (ICIIP). IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  34. Maheswari VU, Prasad GV, Raju SV (2021) Facial expression analysis using local directional stigma mean patterns and convolutional neural networks. Int J Knowl-based Intell Eng Syst 25(1):119–128

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ramani R, Vanitha NS, Valarmathy S (2013) The pre-processing techniques for breast cancer detection in mammography images. Int J Image Graph Sign Process 5(5):47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Young IT, Van Vliet LJ (1995) Recursive implementation of the Gaussian filter. Signal Process 44(2):139–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hariraj V, Khairunizam W, Vikneswaran V, Ibrahim Z, Shahriman AB, Zuradzman MR, Rajendran T, Sathiyasheelan R (2018) Fuzzy multi-layer SVM classification of breast cancer mammogram images. Int J Mech Eng Tech 9(8):1281–1299

    Google Scholar 

  38. Safaei N, Smadi O, Safaei B, Masoud A (2021) A novel adaptive pixels segmentation algorithm for pavement crack detection

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hwang H, Haddad RA (1995) Adaptive median filters: new algorithms and results. IEEE Trans Image Process 4(4):499–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Osmania University, Hyderabad, India

    Mudrakola Swapna

  2. Department of CSE, Vasavi College of Engineering, Hyderabad, India

    Nagaratna Hegde

Authors
  1. Mudrakola Swapna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nagaratna Hegde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mudrakola Swapna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bioaxis DNA Research Centre Private Ltd., Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    Amit Kumar

  2. Glenwood, NSW, Australia

    Stefan Mozar

  3. Nordakademie University of Applied Sciences, Elmshorn, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

    Jan Haase

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Swapna, M., Hegde, N. (2023). Noise Removal Filtering Methods for Mammogram Breast Images. In: Kumar, A., Mozar, S., Haase, J. (eds) Advances in Cognitive Science and Communications. ICCCE 2023. Cognitive Science and Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8086-2_97

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8086-2_97

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-8085-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-8086-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation